Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful context by naming the returned fields and the underlying endpoint (GET /api/v1/funds). It does not mention pagination behavior or default page size, so it adds modest value beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences plus an endpoint reference; the field list comes first and the downstream-use hint second. No filler, though the endpoint string is redundant metadata for an agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the fields returned and the ids/names an agent should reuse. Pagination is fully handled by the schema's limit/offset descriptions, so a read-only list tool is adequately covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both limit and offset are fully documented with ranges and defaults in the schema — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about pagination semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear resource ('funds, where gifts are designated') and enumerates the fields it carries (campaign, code, financial goal, active flag), which distinguishes funds from the sibling list_campaigns and list_appeals. It never uses an explicit verb like 'list', but the resource and scope are unambiguous for an agent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The sentence 'Use the ids and names when recording gifts or filtering searches' gives a downstream-use hint, tying it to lgl_create_gift and search tools, but it never states when to call this versus a sibling list endpoint (campaigns, appeals, groups) or any exclusion condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.